Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

It could have been abolished, it could be that it was abolished in some regions and not others. That being said, everything in the scriptures isn't confirmed, and we both know that, but that doesn't mean that a person can't cite a scripture as "clear evidence of their position", and this goes for both sides. I don't see how I am being intellectually dishonest for interpreting these matters as evidences when this is a plausible interpretation of a number of issues.


Ok, but Christian v. Secular shouldn't impact as strongly what the scriptures are suggesting at certain points in time. I don't think the evidence I provided was terrible, and I certainly provided three verses that potentially constitute solid evidence. One verse in Exodus, one verse in Ezekiel, and one verse in Micah, all of which provide more direct evidence than indirect evidence. I think there was a verse in Kings but I don't think I cited it, maybe I did and can't find it.

That being said, even your use of Genesis could be questioned by the example of Jepthah in Judges, as a human sacrifice to God has to have some precedent to be valid and to be upheld as a valid position for 2 months! So, trying to say that evidence is just "so shaky" doesn't seem entirely honest here. And Micah's own idea of a child as a sin offering also doesn't make much sense without saying that it couldn't have been that solidly built into the culture as the story of Abraham suggests.

I don't think my evidence can be so quickly outright dismissed, and I don't think I have been unusually dishonest in evaluating sources.


I know, but it is the only source available.

I don't say it nor I think you are, at all, if I can be considered of attacking someone or something that would be the link your provided for the subject (debunkingchristianity's position)

Ok, but John Loftus is a thinker who has published one book on the matter, is publishing another book with people such as Hector Avalos (a Biblical scholar) and Richard Carrier (who is an academic historian), and who has some good reading on the matter and some training as he has 3 masters degrees in theology.

I don't think John is being entirely dishonest. I think his method might be questioned as some of the Bible citations aren't as clear as desired(in his defense a lot of people who cite the Bible cite it in such a way). Additionally under this excerpt, the citation points to writings by Hector Avalos, Jon Levenson(who I established as a professor of religion), Susan Nuditch, a Dr. S. Ackerman, and Francesca Stavrakopoulou. So, he seems to be citing legitimate sources for his beliefs, not illegitimate sources. Now, he could still be dishonest, but I don't think it is dishonest to cite scholarship and claim that something is true, but rather I think scholars do this all of the time in their writings, because even though matters are up to debate, they usually do believe that they have found the correct interpretation and thus have found the truth.

I merely took you as criticizing me as you seemed to say that I was going "too far" based upon our evidence.

worst question ever.

Well, anyway...... here´s my response.
WR is against common sense, they should have the same rights as farm-animals.

thank you for reading.

This depends, of course, upon which farm animals you choose to sleep with.

I never said anything about sleeping with animals, but whatever......get some reading skills.

I suspect it is a good impulse to keep it a secret. The implications were there.

So you're telling me that it is OK if a husband beats his wife, rapes her on a nightly basis, insults her for no reason, and abuses her in every way possible? From what I've read about Women in the Bible, Women were meant to be equal to Men. Although they are supposed to submit to their husbands, the husband is supposed to treat her kindly so that submission is her natural response, they are supposed to work as a team. Also, look on the post I made when I started this thread and you will see what rights I am talking about.

I am telling you that the bible says so. I of course think all those things are wrong.



I think the quote I posted was clear enough. Do notice that since a husband owns his wife (as the bible quote I posted says) he can order his wife not to vote, not to participate of government and not to have a job. If your husband rules over you, all your property is actually your husband's. As a punishment for eating a random apple, God ordered women to follow the men' orders blindly. Cool? Not only that, but a woman not having a natural birth is avoiding god's rule over her, sounds like a sinner.

Read this:

now, there is a man of rare wisdom! I was not aware this forum would allow such non politically correct opinions as they may damage some frail's self esteem!

I might like it better than I though! Good for you, The Odd Goat.

And, as Jesus did with the church, when your wife steps out of line it's OK to rough her up a bit until she comes to her senses.

And what is Biblical advice on wives roughing up husbands who philander?

Stone them? *shrug*

Becoming stoned was quite popular during the 1960's but I doubt it had a negative effect on bedroom explorations.

I seriously hope you don't mean that it is OK for a man to be violent with his wife because she, for example, left the house to run an errand (such as getting groceries) or forgot to mow the lawn.